Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 840 of 1444 (849221)
02-28-2019 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by Phat
02-28-2019 2:21 PM


Re: Characters
Phat writes:
ringo wants the message to be true more than he wants to know or identify if there is an actual messenger or not.
It has nothing to do with what I want. The message IS true. It works, in a social species. I'm just not that impressed that the messenger you obsess about managed to grasp the message that millions of other humans understand.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 2:21 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 2:54 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 845 of 1444 (849240)
03-01-2019 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Phat
02-28-2019 2:54 PM


Re: Characters
Phat writes:
If it were that easy, the whole world would easily embrace your message.
It isn't "my" message. It's a universal message.
Phat writes:
Why do you think they don't?
What makes you think they don't?
Phat writes:
Many are selfish. In addition, they are conservative and don't believe that there ever will be a free lunch. Especially if they have to make it.
Indeed. And most of them are religious.
Phat writes:
Many dont trust organized religion or the motives of them.
Now you're arguingng against yourself. Remember, you're the religious one and you're the one who's arguing against the message.
Phat writes:
There is no proven track record that giving everything away to the society provides that that society than support you.
Of course there is.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 2:54 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 848 of 1444 (849336)
03-06-2019 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by Phat
03-06-2019 2:30 PM


Re: ** FOREknowledge**
Phat writes:
In my mind, natural disasters are not so much evil as they are simply naturally inevitable.
Of course the disasters themselves are not evil. An omnipotent being that allows them to happen is.
Phat writes:
Evil is something caused by humans.
Or Gods.
And a sin of omission counts.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Phat, posted 03-06-2019 2:30 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 850 of 1444 (849340)
03-06-2019 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by 1.61803
03-06-2019 5:17 PM


Re: ** FOREknowledge**
~1.6 writes:
Simply going around saying God is evil because no good God would do such things is like saying you think your mother is evil because she gave birth to you and introduced you into a evil world.
Not at all. Your mother didn't create the evil nor does she have the ability to stop it.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by 1.61803, posted 03-06-2019 5:17 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by 1.61803, posted 03-06-2019 5:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 852 of 1444 (849342)
03-06-2019 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by 1.61803
03-06-2019 5:33 PM


Re: ** FOREknowledge**
~1.6 writes:
Evil is a human construct.
And we're humans, so that works out nicely for this discussion.
~1.6 writes:
Shiva is both the creator and destroyer.
So is YHWH/Jehovah/God (Isaiah 45:7). It's a requirement of omipotence.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by 1.61803, posted 03-06-2019 5:33 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 862 of 1444 (879692)
07-20-2020 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 859 by Phat
07-20-2020 8:54 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Phat writes:
ringo argues that authority is not nor should not be the best option, and that we should essentially live out our roles in this cosmic scenario just as the fallen Lucifer is doing.
The "fallen Lucifer" thing is just made-up nonsense. You shouldn't make it such a big part of your theology. Or any part, actually.
For homework, look up how many times the name "Lucifer" appears in the Bible. The tell us whom it refers to.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 8:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 11:42 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 864 of 1444 (879697)
07-20-2020 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by Phat
07-20-2020 11:42 AM


Re: According To Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Phat writes:
So lets see what Wiki has to say
I asked you what the Bible has to say.
According to my calculations, the word "Lucifer" appears ONCE in the King James Version - and has been dropped entirely by most newer translations. In Isaiah 14:12, Lucifier IS the King of Babylon, not just a symbol. Any symbolism has been made up by your apologists.
Phat writes:
Christianity basically needs a fallen angel in order to justify the mission of Christ.
What if the so-called "mission of Christ" was also made up?
Phat writes:
What sense would it make for God, Creator of all seen and unseen, to simply be represented by another in a long line of fallible human teachers?
What's the problem with that?
Phat writes:
The fact that you never believed or were convinced of the reality of the supernatural....
Stop saying that. It's a lie.
Phat writes:
Take it from one who has witnessed supernatural manifestations.
As I have told you before, I have had "experiences" too. You misinterpret them as "supernatural". I don't.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 11:42 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 11:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 866 of 1444 (879732)
07-21-2020 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 865 by Phat
07-20-2020 11:51 PM


Re: According To Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Phat writes:
Apologists dont simply make stuff up any more than you can naively and blindly claim that Lucifer is only the King of Babylon.
There's nothing naive about it. It's what the Bible says. The whole story of Lucifer is made up. The apologist stories about a powerful Satan/Lucifer/etc. are totally incompatable with an omniscient God. They're not only made up, they're an insult to God.
Phat writes:
Babylon means confusion...
Babylon means Babylon. Sometimes you guys are not literal enough.
Phat writes:
... and todays world fits that definition.
Isaiah wasn't talking about today's world. Don't be so egocentric.
Phat writes:
Lucifer is clearly a spirit of pride, autonomy, and power. It is a jealous spirit and seeks to be the focus of self exultation and quite literally the vibe behind all that's wrong with humans in the world today.
And that's clearly a human attruibute that needs no external spook to foster it. Don't try to shift the blame for your own shortcomings onto a fictional character.
Phat writes:
You can fall back on your positions that vilify apologists, but you will find that your so-called literal "common sense" readings into who and what Lucifer is is itself deceptive, misleading, and a disservice to those who seek to know the truth behind human nature.
You're not interested in the truth. You're afraid to discuss the apologists. Save your insults untill you can actually defend what those liars say.
Phat writes:
And your insistence on throwing away the entire concept of an evil spirit is itself inspired by the same evil spirit which you deny.
That "spirit" is not consistent with an omniscient God.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Phat, posted 07-20-2020 11:51 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 867 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 10:09 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 868 of 1444 (879741)
07-21-2020 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 867 by Phat
07-21-2020 10:09 AM


Re: According To Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Phat writes:
The issue is as you quoted above, being that a "spirit" such as what satan would hypothetically have is inconsistent with an omniscient God. Which I agree with.
So which is it? Is God omniscient? Or does Satan exist?
Phat writes:
Jesus is more than simply a good humanist.
You keep saying that but you never back it up.
Phat writes:
And humans are doomed to repeat their errors if they refuse to understand the mental/spiritual state that gets them in trouble.
That mental state has nothing to do with any Satan - or Jesus, for that matter. And believers don't demonstrate an understanding greater than unbelievers.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 10:09 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 869 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 12:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 870 of 1444 (879746)
07-21-2020 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by Phat
07-21-2020 12:40 PM


Re: According To Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Phat writes:
Why must it be one or the other?
I thought you agree that they are incompatible.
Phat writes:
Simply because God is all-knowing does not necessitate satans non-existence.
It makes Satan irrelevant. If God is all-knowing, He's responsible for evil. Satan may be his tool (see Job), though that would be unnecessary too if God was omnipotent. But Satan can't be the super-villain that you make him out to be.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Phat, posted 07-21-2020 12:40 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 885 of 1444 (879773)
07-22-2020 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by Phat
07-22-2020 12:13 PM


Re: Its Relational...Not About Being Good
Phat writes:
God is simply aware of evil.
But your own description of God is, "Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." Evil is seen and unseen.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Phat, posted 07-22-2020 12:13 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by Phat, posted 07-22-2020 12:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 889 of 1444 (879777)
07-22-2020 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 887 by Phat
07-22-2020 12:44 PM


Re: Its Relational...Not About Being Good
Phat writes:
Whats your point? I know you are in the library and cant listen to the podcast but there is a transcript which I copied.
My point has nothing to do with the podcast. It has to do with what I quoted you saying. God can not be "simply aware" of evil if He is the creator of all things seen and unseen.
Edited by ringo, : Pselling.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by Phat, posted 07-22-2020 12:44 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by Phat, posted 07-22-2020 1:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 894 of 1444 (879821)
07-23-2020 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 890 by Phat
07-22-2020 1:07 PM


Re: Its Relational...Not About Being Good
Phat writes:
God created the possibility of evil expressiveness.
No. He created all things seen and unseen. That's your description, not mine. God CREATED evil, by your description, not mine.
Phat writes:
God is aware of what He allowed to manifest.
So He just stands around watching evil happen, without lifting a finger to stop it. That is evil.
And you think "free will" is an excuse for that? We don't let our children do bad things just because we don't dare to violate their "free will". Why would God do it?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by Phat, posted 07-22-2020 1:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by Phat, posted 07-23-2020 12:29 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 896 of 1444 (879830)
07-23-2020 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by Phat
07-23-2020 12:29 PM


Re: Its Relational...Not About Being Good
Phat writes:
Because the initial choice was given to fully mature spirit beings known as angels. Angels were not Gods "children".
1. Aren't the Sons of God in Genesis 6:2 usually considered to be angels?
2. What has that got to do with humans?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Phat, posted 07-23-2020 12:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Phat, posted 07-23-2020 1:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 904 of 1444 (879881)
07-24-2020 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Phat
07-23-2020 1:14 PM


Re: As Long As We Are Making It Up...
Phat writes:
Thus the angels were not sons in the human sense...is what I get out of it. They were more along the line of stewards or subjects.
Humans are also subjects of the King and stewards of His world. They are not God's sons either in a literal biological sense, only in a figurative sense.
But what has that got to do with the topic?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Phat, posted 07-23-2020 1:14 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024